lol they still couldn't decide? XP anyone else notice she was smiling why they talked about how they might need to bring in a whole new jury geezzzeeee. lol

Of COURSE Arias was smiling. She gets to spend the next 6 months as the center of attention again. If I were the taxpayers of this jurisdiction, I'd sue for malpractice. My God! What this is going to end up costing and there is no doubt of her guilt.

This is the same jurisdiction that sheriff joe arpaio resides in. Malpractice is the rule, not the exception.

Jez. At this rate she wants the death penalty. Give it to her and save us money

Fortunately, the jury was able to decide upon GUILTY.

So the new jury will have to just decide on the death penalty instead of starting from square one. And opens a subsequent media circus over the years of legal appeals to follow no matter what sentence is now imposed.

There are 2 failures in this instance. 1) the jury failed in its duty to come to a decision. Without being inside the jury chamber, only they can answer to this issue. 2) This is also a legislative failure. In some states, if the jury cannot agree on a death sentence, then the minimum sentence - life w/out parole is imposed. It prevents exactly this type of problem.

thus, the jurisdiction became an immobile block of fail.

You are absolutely correct.
You're also too damned poetic for what's going on here.

possible.

I mean, did a possible death sentence ever make people refrain from doing crimes? so why not ignore it and make it into a life sentence... but being unable to decide between the two, and thus not being able to finish it off despite it all laying out there is nothign but fail. and if I were one of the relatives of the victims* I'd surely try to sue the jury for whatever comes to mind.
like, having sex in any other than the missionaries' position. or sleepign naked, or tieing your rhino to a lamp post.


*assuming that woman comitted a homicide, that is.

There is no doubt this woman killed the victim, the only question was why. Was she insane with jealousy? Or afraid for her life? She claims she was a victim of sexual and domestic abuse and yet *she* sought him out, traveled great distances to be with him and took pictures of her and Alexander on the date of the murder. She also lied to the police, first claiming not to have been there at all, then changing her story when she found out that they had time-stamped digital photos of her, and Alexander, and the bathroom where he died. Not to mention a palm-print in blood and other evidence. THEN she said that masked intruders broke in, attacked Alexander and made her watch, then these "ninjas" let her go and disappeared. I cannot remember what excuse these "ninjas" were supposed to have given for killing Alexander.

The real crime in regards to the hung jury is the fact that the prosecution could put a stop to this by taking the death penalty off the table. The judge cannot sentence Arias to death. Only a jury can do that. But the judge CAN sentence her to life without parole and this would save the county, state and the victim's family an ENORMOUS amount of pain and money.

What scares Arias is not prison. It's being ignored. I say lock her up, throw away the key and ignore her.

the same way they should ignore terrorists like Anders Breivig. all he wanted is was exposure on TV. and he was on TV. and you saw his ugly mug in the internet, day by day... every little thief has their face and name withheld without question, for good reasons. but this one? I guess the victim's relatives could do without his face on the screen umpteen times a day.

I remember a CSI: New York episode where they caught some serial killer who wanted to be on TV. they withheld his name and face using terrorism laws...
in my opinion nobody needs to see their faces at all. who knows, they might be innocent after all (wouldn't be the first time), and try and start a new life after prison when your face graced every rampage in the world under the word "murderer!"...

The only reason this got the press it did was because of lurid sex. Women have killed out of jealousy before. Sometimes with great savagery. But very few of them got to spend 18 days on the stand talking in great detail about every carnal desire she and the victim indulged in.

Of course, when asked about the murder itself, she could remember nothing.

The news media in this country are like dogs. When they get a bone, they chew it to pieces. Sex and murder make for a pretty meaty bone...

oh yeah. and because good news aren't of any interest to them people think everything is about sex&murder these days...

And terrorism... and political scandal... and weather. Right now, we got a lot of weather.

oh yeah. around my place,we have sun and 15°C+.

somewhere 400km north, it snows.


who cares for a psychopathic murderer.

In 1776? :)

Probably before that. Lunacy has deep roots.

Well, I am kinda joking, kinda being literal there (as usual) 'cause American colonies were seen as the asylum for people suffering persecution on religious grounds...

Eeyep.

I'm quite certain there are no end of volunteers to solve the problem. They wouldn't even charge for the ammo.

I thought the judge and law was the one to determine the sentence, not the jury. Jury would just determine guilt?

Under the two-phase system (the one currently in use for capital cases) the jury determines guilt, then also determines what penalty recommendation to give the judge. In death penalty cases, the judge must give "great weight" to the jury's recommendation. I've seen cases where the jury suggested death, only to have the judge set aside the recommendation and give the guy life without parole.

Laws vary from state to state. In CA, or at least in this part of CA, the judge cannot sentence a murderer to death. Only to life in prison with or without parole. IF they decided to forgo the death penalty, they could forgo another trial, but evidently the prosecution does not wish to do that.

I haven't paid very close attention to the Arias trial, but I know that she was found guilty. I think allowing her to bring up the abuse in the penalty phase muddied the waters sufficiently.

Maybe. And maybe there were jurors who were simply against the death penalty. In death penalty cases, the jury must be unanimous and I will be interested to see how this jury was split. If there were only one or two holdouts, then I think the judge should have forced them to deliberate longer.

What I don't get is why the WHOLE thing has to be redone. They have a verdict, just not a sentence. And if the prosecution can end this agony simply by letting go of the death penalty and opting to lock the woman up for life without parole, then I would think it was in the best interest of everyone to do so. The worst thing they can do to Arias is take her out of the spotlight. Once this case is resolved, they can do that. Killing her will just leave that spotlight glowing through numerous appeals and other hearing, so I'd just as soon they not kill her, Burying her alive is far more appropriate.

I'm not sure why it'd be a mistrial either. Considering what state the trial's being held in, that state's laws would apply.

When the inmates started bringing money in I guess?

I'm not an American so please excuse my ignorance. She was already found guilty, so because the penalty phase has been hung up a whole new trial has to take place? That seems a little crazy. The penalty phase should be left to the judiciary and not be left to the same jury. A defence lawyer just has to ensure that one jury member is prolife/pro-death penelty and the trial can be wiped after a jury decision of conviction.

From what I've read if this was to go to trial again it would only be for the penalty phase. The new jury would hear a 'cliff notes' version of the case (which would still take several days) and then deliberate. Now the prosecution could decide not to go for the death penalty again, which the second trial would become unnecessary and the judge would determine if she would get life or the chance for parole after 25 years.

That sounds more reasonable, thank you for that information.

they should just lock her up in solitary confinement fer teh rest of her years with no interaction from anyone save the police fer the food nothing else >:V

Vicky, note one thing: they had no problem convicting her of murder. They only had a problem deciding the penalty. Giving her the death penalty would start an appeals process that could last for decades. Giving her life in prison (the same penalty, when you think about it) means that the State has to support her for (possibly) a longer amount of time.

I do agree that the trial should not restarted from scratch, though. It should be made legal in a case like this one that a new jury be seated just for the purpose of determining the punishment instead of retrying the entire case.

Thankfully it does not ALL start over! She is still guilty of Murder but they have to have a new jury to sentence her!

She said she did it, she asked for the death penalty, where is the hold up? Oh, yeah. Lawyers will continue to reap in the cash while all this goes on and on and on....

The answer to your question is because Batman.

At least, Nancy Grace has a hobby for a little while longer...

Nancy Grace always has a hobby ---or an axe to grind. Take your pick.

Sigh...to long for the days when Headline News meant 30 minutes of updated news and sports.

Missing David Goodenow, Lynne Russell, Don Harrison, and Van Earl Wright...

Been in court myself, and let me tell you - the system is broken.
Sometimes, idiotically broken. Not in every case, but enough.

Actually here in Maricopa in cases like this with a deadlock on penalty a new jury will be selected and then if they deadlock the judge will do the penalty

Bureaucracy turns blind justice into blinded justice. There's a need for standards, but gaping loopholes like this are ridiculous.

At the risk of getting all controversial: This wouldn't have happened if capital punishment were abolished.

She was found Guilty that verdict still stands. What the deadlock was on the penalty hearing, so its not a full re-trial. The new Jury is simply sitting for the penalty phase. They will get a CliffNotes version of the trial. If that Jury becomes locked then the Judge gets to decide Life without Parole or Life with Parole possible in 25 years. The Judge in that state doesn't have the authorization to directly apply the Death Penalty.

Just cut her loose and hope for the best.

She's guilty as the day is long and a mile is high.

It's really not going to be any longer or shorter. She's not gonna just go right under the rug as soon as she's sentenced, nor is she going to be seeing sunlight of her own accord if they delay is...

The best thing to do about attention hogs? don't bring attention to their attention hogging.

Some time ago.